Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>
Date: 2017-11-14T18:43:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 14 November 2017 at 13:12, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> Here's the remaining bits, rebased.
>
> It's true that Tom and I reviewed patch 0001, as your proposed commit
> message states.  But it's also true that we both said that it probably
> wasn't a good idea.

I don't see any comments from you or Tom about patch 0001, which was
simple refactoring and not much to complain about.

Perhaps there is some confusion about the numbering?

I see that Alvaro had taken your comments on memory contexts into
account in his later patch.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Local partitioned indexes

  2. Fix StoreCatalogInheritance1 to use 32bit inhseqno

  3. Get rid of copy_partition_key

  4. Simplify index_[constraint_]create API